A review of the history of research and control of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, babesiosis and anaplasmosis in Uruguay

Abstract

In Uruguay, control of Rhipicephalus microplus began in 1910. In 1941 the eradication of R. micoplus throughout the country was declared mandatory, although this attempt was unsuccessful. Since 2008 the country was divided into two regions: the south-western region, which is free of ticks; and a region of tick control that includes all departments to the north of the Rio Negro and five departments in the eastern region. In Uruguay, investigations on R. microplus, babesiosis and anaplasmosis started in 1921, and in the 1970s, studies of the epidemiology of R. microplus determined that from 2 to 3.5 generations can be produced annually and that the country is in an area of enzootic instability for babesiosis and anaplasmosis. Knowledge of tick epidemiology and of tick resistance to different acaricides led to the development of efficient methods of control or eradication, including integrated control and generational treatment. Although research results have led to a legal framework regarding R. microplus control, these measures have had variable results. This can be attributed to several factors, such as the discontinuation of the control measures, variable financial resources, changes in the dynamics of livestock movement, failure to adopt available technology for tick control by farmers, climate change, environmental alterations such as forestation and the increasing resistance of ticks to acaricides, which led to the development of multiresistant ticks. This paper reviews the history of R. microplus, babesiosis and anaplasmosis in Uruguay and proposes alternatives for their control.

Experimental Infection of Calves with Transfected Attenuated Babesia bovis Expressing the Rhipicephalus microplus Bm86 Antigen and eGFP Marker: Preliminary Studies towards a Dual Anti-Tick/Babesia Vaccine

“…B. bovis is usually implicated in a severe form of the disease referred to as cerebral babesiosis and similar to cerebral malaria, which is caused by the sequestration of infected red blood cells (RBC) in the brain capillaries, leading to neurological signs and death [1,2]. Ticks of the genus Rhipicephalus, primarily R. annulatus and R. microplus, are the primary competent vectors for the transmission of B. bovis and B. bigemina, and the presence of these tick populations has been associated with outbreaks of bovine babesiosis in endemic areas [3][4][5][6][7].…”

Aplicaciones de las nanopartículas metálicas en las ciencias veterinarias

“…Hoy en día se producen, caracterizan y evalúan diversas nanopartículas metálicas contra diversos endoparásitos y ectoparásitos que son causantes de enfermedades tanto en animales domésticos y acuáticos (26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34). Se evaluaron in vitro las AgNPs (con un tamaño de 15-25 nm y de forma esférica) sintetizadas con Azadirachta indica contra larvas y forma adultas de Haemonchus contortus, un parásito muy importante en la producción ovina y caprina, las cuales mostraron inhibición en la eclosión de larvas de H. contortus a concentraciones de 1 μg/mL y muerte del parasito adulto a concentraciones de 7.89 μg/mL, estos hallazgos evidencian las propiedades antihelmínticas de estas nanopartículas (26).…”

“…Aunque todos los estudios anteriores proponen a las NPs metálicas como una alternativa en el control de parásitos en animales acuáticos y terrestres, los autores coinciden que existen riesgos de citotoxicidad y genotoxicidad debido a la inducción de apoptosis y necrosis tisular ocasionadas por la generación de ROS inducidas por las NPs. El daño celular generado por las NPs va a depender de diversos factores como; la eficacia de los mecanismos antioxidantes, la eficiencia de los sistemas de reparación de ADN, la propensión apoptótica y la capacidad de resistencia celular y por las características propias de las nanopartículas como el tamaño, forma, carga superficial, revestimiento superficial, solubilidad, concentración, el modo entrada y la estabilidad de las partículas (16,21,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34).…”

Is the suckling period and application pattern relevant for fluazuron efficacy against ticks in cows and their suckling calves?

“…Tick infestations constitute one of the major problems in livestock production in Uruguay and South America (1,2). The use of acaricides in Uruguay has been the main tool for tick control (3). In control programs of ticks, drugs administration requires a strategic dosage plan with established times according to the residuality of the drugs or depending if the establishment is in a tick control or eradication program (4).…”